talkmagic.co.uk

I have seen something recently which I quite liked as an effect however I am unable to think of a way it can be achieved in the way it is presented.

This could of course mean I am just not smart/devious/experienced enough to work this out and to be honest I really do not care about the original method however, can television presentations ever be truly trusted at face value because of the way things can be edited.

I guess the same thing can be said with stage shows using p** s*** to a certain extent however the scope to use selective editing (for example to remove a lead up such as a CT being used to derive an undisclosed word) makes (through a magi's eye's at least) something not to be trusted.

I am not talking about using Weta Digital style CGI nonsense, it is more selective editing that I am suspicious off.

Thoughts?

A_n_t wrote:This could of course mean I am just not smart/devious/experienced enough to work this out and to be honest I really do not care about the original method however, can television presentations ever be truly trusted at face value because of the way things can be edited.

Absolutely not. I have a great deal of sympathy for the view, though, that selective editing can be used in order to achieve the impossible, and misdirect the camera, and don't really have a problem with it. The purpose of presenting magic on television is, surely to give you some idea of what the experience would be like if you were there in the room, so if a magician misdirects his audience at the exact time he makes a move, it doesn't seem too unfair for the camera to follow suit.

I don't know much about how TV magic is created, but it would be a foolish magician not to make use of the extensive opportunity of p** s*** that TV production could afford. If you consider the budget at your disposal for a single effect, or the stages through which a participant must go before they actually get onto the set, then there is a world of opportunity out there. It's something I tend to keep in mind when watching Mr Brown's entertainments, and never assume of them that he just turns up with a peek wallet and makes do.

Mr_Grue wrote:...don't really have a problem with it.

Neither do I and I whole heartedly agree that the TV audience are not the same as a live audience.

It just becomes frustrating if you are sat thinking "Ooh I quite like that." but as you think through the process and watch it on DVD loop several times ( ) the magician side of you begins to think/realise/become convinced that there must be a step missing!

I believe most performers use the Tele as a crowd puller. So many TV preformers now days use both camera trickery and plants that most laymen fall for and want to see them live. There is a Pro/Con for us which in that it brings magic to the public which creates a want for people to hire magicians for events, but that the same time many have expectations or reguard these characters as the best even though they are out right cheating the audience from any thing that could be done infront of real people.

Example look at Chris, Blaine, and Copperfield... these guys all big use alot of TV magic as I call it to do things that are impossible... how any anyone believe anyting if they are not there to witness it first hand? So they than shell out a few hundered to go see them live in vegas or somewhere and instead of a large production they usually end up with simple stuff with maybe 1 show stopper... but in the end they than spread the word that thses tv magicians are so awesome and the wow factor remains becuase they swear its all real

needless to say if you had the backing they have you too would probably go that path, as would I perhaps...

As to watching trainning videos depending on how well they explain it will determin the quality. As to the loop videos I didnt see anything wrong with them as far as steps. I do know when watching the trainning vs the preformance there is a diffrence in the methods of the preformance form an acting point of view but the steps are the same, with some improv here and there based on reactions.